User talk:Doc James

 Translation
Main page Those Involved
(sign up) Newsletter 

Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online. Why can't I refute a secondary source with a primary source? Conversation moved. Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Ultimatum 'Dumbledore says people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right,' said Hermione, of J. K. Rowling fame, in the Half-Blood Prince, on page ninety-five. If you want to sell optimism and likely ultimate causes, then you will accept cancellation of your work. If you want to sell drugs and doubt, then you will keep to your version of baby colic. Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.152.124.107 (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is here to reflect the best available which I define as review articles and major medical textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC) According to Kelly Bonyata, a respected International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, who like wikipedia writes sourced scientific advice literature (Bachelor of Science), Cow's milk iz the most common food sensitivity for breast feeders to avoid passing on to nurslings. Like you, she haz direct experience with baby colic. Unlike you, she iz prepared to counsel mothers to read labels and avoid casseinates and whey. This research supports her counselling with the gold standard of experiemental design. You do not. Doctors like pills, because pills get results quickly and effectively when they work at all. Does that put you in a conflict of interest? I find you to be out of your field, because you practise emergency medicine, and we are talking about pediatrics. Why are you supporting your position with policy instead of science? Surely you can see that reviewers would need to be very ignorant of experimental design to say anything more than "Feeding changes usually are not advised.", which iz quite different from what you said, "Dietary changes by infants are generally not needed". Saying that physicians usually do not diet-counsel and saying that it does not need to be done are different things. Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.152.124.54 (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Simply find recent review articles in high quality sources for refs per WP:MEDRS. We must paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC) How came you to believe that guidelines are more authoritative than rigorous scientific method? 75.152.124.54 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Kindly go bother someone else. If out are not interested in constructive discussion find another website or start your own blog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Comments adjusted here [1] Okay so why do we use review articles rather than primary sources here at WikiProject Medicine? Review articles generally give a better overview of all the literature on a topic. Some studies find positive results other find negative results. Good review articles take all these into account and give them proper balance. Systematic reviews are deemed to be the best source of information for specific questions. Literature reviews are better for a general overview. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day. Thanks. I started a web site and writing articles with points on USENET over fifteen years ago. I started blogging on facebook about five years ago. I only come to wikipedia when my content seems to be under attack, or when I find strong evidence for something on pubmed that really should hav more exposure. When it's more exposure for important information I want, I can usually change one line that iz already supported, and add a citation in a clause. I also fill in citation requests. I do hav persistent citations on wikipedia. I do not want to tell you where they are, because you are a deletionist with a heavy and authoritative knife. I do not blame you for trying to simplify and cut down baby colic. Unfortunately, quartering it, and cutting out my content based upon one review that found a lot of inconclusive evidence for just about everything it considered wuz too much. Perhaps you should start an independent writing career. I think your speaking career iz more useful, though, especially if there can be a greater degree of "we" in this discussion. I am not a pediatrician. I fell in with a group of wimin on facebook who are very wary of pediatricians, and who are not afraid to tell you why. 75.152.124.54 (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC) You are more than welcome to ask for further opinions at WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Unfortunately, further opinions do not count. I do not aim to change policy, so I should hav no need to gather consensus. It seems that on this particular article, I do need to gather consensus to do a deep reversion. That iz enough work for me. Policy refers to common sense in many places. Unfortunately, common sense iz rare, people are creatures of habit, and those habits create beliefs. In this case, habit of enforcing a content guideline haz created in many people a failure to understand what constitutes rigorous scientific method, and it iz not necessarily reviews. Even textbooks contain opinions. 75.152.124.54 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Please notice that the template no longer tells people to delete primary sources, even if the guideline does. This guideline runs counter to WP:PSTS, which is policy that explicitly allows primary sources. What am I supposed to do if a primary source contains risk ratios, and a review does not? 75.152.124.54 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC) For what content? Often review articles will state by how much something changes risk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Meta-analyticaL reviews calculate a summary odds ratio (SOR), which iz a risk ratio weighted for size of study. One man plus courage is a majority. I haven't even found RCTs about baby colic and chocolate, onions, or Brassica; no reviews, of course. Those are few and far between. For example, I found a meta-analysis for SIDS that means babies exclusively breastfed have a twenty-seven percent of normal risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Breastfeeding nearly quarters a baby's risk for SIDS. Recommendations from the United Nations and WHO about breastfeeding are not meta-analytical: They are popular reviews, though.172.219.255.215 (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Please write normally or do not write on my talk pages. There are reviews that cover diet and colic. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Your homework is piling up. My problem is more specific than diet and colic. White on black tells you more clearly who is speaking than nesting. Prove that there are reviews concerning brassica and chocolate, because I just showed evidence that there are none in searches that are one-hit wonders. 172.219.255.215 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry not how it works. We use review articles because they show notability. If it is not commented on in a high quality secondary source it is not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Risk ratios show that, not people. Facts are not a popularity contest. Why is it important for experimenters to be ignorant of whether their subject is a control? Bohgosity BumaskiL 172.219.255.215 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Edit reversion You should have left a message on the editor's talk page to explain this reversion, especially when the editor is new to Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Yes feel free to leave messages when I do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC) That message is a pathetic attempt at trying to engage a new editor. I have sent a proper message. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Perfect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC) refs? What is it that you want references for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjones008 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC) You should be adding refs whenever you add content. This edit for example needs a ref [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Regarding alkalinization of urine and uric acid stones, I'm right. The correction I was making was the previous version reported xanthine oxidase inhibition to be the primary therapy which is wrong. The reference shows that there is dramatic melting of large stones with alkalinization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtopf (talk • contribs) 07:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Okay but "cornerstone of treatment"?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtopf (talk • contribs) 07:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC) How about "Raising the pH of the urine by potassium citrate or bicarbonate may dissolve uric acid stones"? with this ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21121431 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC) We however discuss it already in detail here [3] What was wrong with this bit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Metformin Hi Doc, Thanks for your help with the Saxagliptin article, and with the other gliptin articles which I assume you reviewed as well. I don't mean to be argumentative, but the most recent meta analyses I was able to find indicate no CV benefit for metformin or one that is just barely statistically significant and only in monotherapy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22517929 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22509138 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21205121. I realize that I'm splitting hairs here over a second tier drug. But am aiming for consistency. Best Formerly 98 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Yes realize that there has been some backpedaling with respect to the mortality benefits of metformin. We have this 2012 AHRQ systematic review [4] were metformin is "associated with lower all cause and cardiovascular mortality" in the conclusions. At least when compared with sulfonylureas Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure sulfonylureas are the best comparator, as they have been suspected of increasing CV mortality at least since I worked in the diabetes area in the early 1990s. Not sure if that suspicion has waned. Back then it was attributed to their property of increasing hyperinsulinemia, which was part of what set off the search for insulin sensitizers (some of which have been even worse). (ADDED NOTE: a quick pubmed search for meta analyses on "sulfonylureas cardiovascular" seems to point to an increase in CV risk relative to placebo) I guess my point is just that since none or almost none of the anti hyperglycemia drugs reduces CV mortality, we should adopt common language and not leave the impression that particular agents are uniquely lacking in CV benefits. What would you like to do here? I'd vote for at least adding the phrase that "few if any other anti hyperglycemic drugs improve CV outcomes". Of course I'll have to run down the references for this. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC) What about insulin? Do we have a ref that makes this statement? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I can't find anything reliable on that. Maybe hard to put patients on any sort of placebo treatment for as long as it takes to do a CV outcomes trial, and if you use a drug comparator you don't get an absolute answer. Hyperinsulinemia arising from endogenous insulin release in response to insulin resistance is certianly predictive of CV disease, but that's a little different. Formerly 98 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Comment removed from my talk page [5] Thanks for the words advising caution. Am in conversations with a few editors who share my concerns but are uncomfortable to express them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Possibly unfree files Some of the files that you have uploaded may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 March 8#OTRS pending since January for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I assume that you mean this one [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC) FYI Hello, You may want to read this to better understand what is going on with that arbitrator. Although it is from 2008, but he's still the same man. Maybe it is not so obvious from his actions on Wiki, but emails I got from him is a clear indication that nothing has changed. Best wishes.76.126.142.57 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Re: twice (fecal occult blood entry) Greetings - No copyright issue here. Pinnacle BioLabs is my company. Noticed on the talk page of fecal occult blood in 2 separate places users wanted gFOBT image gone and the hi res fit test seems to fit the bill. Thanks for dropping me a line. Feel free to continue the dialogue. CBalentine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbalentine (talk • contribs) 00:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Great. Two things: The watermark needs removing You must send an email to WP:OTRS. Than we can get things straightened out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC) image Send an email giving the image license to wiki when it was uploaded and requested by wiki. I noticed you made some other revisions to the page as well, most importantly of which was The American College of Gastroenterology has recommended the abandoning of gFOBT testing as a Colorectal Cancer Screening tool, in favor of the Fecal Immunochemical Test. This statement was cited, etc. I think given that it is colorectal cancer awareness month, and given the saturation of the topic - and as many people that are in search of answers and turn to wiki - its a bit of an injustice to have an image representative of a methodology that should be non-existent as a modality for CRC screening. Would you mind reverting - and I'll have someone give the image a crop? Many thanks. (also, I can't seem to sign this properly so feel free to reach me at cbalentine@pblabs.com) Cbalentine (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)CBalentine Will look thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Have added "The American College of Gastroenterology has recommended the abandoning of gFOBT testing as a colorectal cancer screening tool, in favor of the fecal immunochemical test." gFOBT is still used in much of the world as even though it is not as good, it costs less and is better than nothing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC) A page you started (Lisa Bero) has been reviewed! Thanks for creating Lisa Bero, Jmh649! Wikipedia editor Jrcrin001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you: Article rated B class, notability okay and declaration excellent. To reply, leave a comment on Jrcrin001's talk page. Learn more about page curation. (test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014 Traffic report: Brinksmen on the brink Discussion report: Four paragraph lead, indefinitely blocked IPs, editor reviews broken? News and notes: Wikipedia Library finding success in matching contributors with sources Featured content: Full speed ahead for the WikiCup WikiProject report: Article Rescue Squadron Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Our statement here http://febrileseizures.org.uk/forums/topic/wikipedias-factual-inaccuracies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.37.5 (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Will keep an eye on that page. If you can define what is wrong with Wikipedia's content using proper sources than we can correct it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Tips Thanks for the editing tips...I didn't realize there was was an easy built-in template. I'll do that going forward. I appreciate your work on here. Grillo7 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Let me know if you have further questions :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Eclampsia Thank you, Doc James. I also made a few changes to the article content to make it less like a treatment protocol for clinicians. And I found a few updated references, too. Some time this week I plan to do a rewrite in honor of International Woman's Day since it is one of the oldest diseases specific to women. Have a nice day. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC) If you bring it to GA would be happy to add it to the translation list :-) Otherwise we should at least translate the lead as part of the group of simplified articles we are translating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC) References The reference I cited had already been used on the sodium nitroprusside page. I simply edited the reference to include an accessible link to the full article. NoriMori (ノリモリ) 14:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks yes. Removed the text in question as the ref did not really support it. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC) I don't understand why u've removed my input Hello James I'm sorry but I don't understand why you have deleted my input. Couldn't you put a special model for requesting more reliable sources instead? Most of the sources in the article are NOT review articles. So I don't understand why you've deleted my (small) input and not the others? --Dernier Siècle (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Yes the rest of the sources need to be replaced by review articles. Adding more primary sources makes this harder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Re Top medical editors Thanks for that msg James. Somewhat depressing to think that my level of wiki activity earns me this place, because I don't feel I work very hard at all. Perhaps I was working more consistently at the beginning of 2013. We really do need more editors... Anyway, I have made a resolution to try out the collaboration with journals thing and if it works out to stop publishing off-wiki. I much prefer writing Wikipedia, because of the sense of collaboration. The delay is due to several half finished papers in the pipe line ... 2 at peer review and the rest in various stages of completion. I am not starting any more, so eventually I will be focusing more on wiki, and focusing on producing a few very high quality articles rather than haphazard editing. Ian and I have toothache at GA currently, but still would need a fair bit of work before being fit for a journal. Maybe aphthous stomatitis is more ready for that. Lesion (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Yes we are few. Wonderful to hear you are going to pick up the pass. We at JMIR Wiki Reviews look forwards to your papers. First few are on the house :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Survey of wikipedians background Hi Doc James, This thread is regarding your post at the project medicine page. I chose not to comment there in order to minimize the impact of my comment on your study; however, I do have a question/comment, I hope you don't mind me posting it here? The project medicine page where you posted your rfc is frequented by the 274 editors who made more than 250 edits to medical articles in 2013. According to the proposal, those are the same editors who will be the subjects of the study. Do you see this overlap as a confound/source of bias? Survey-based studies inherently suffer from social desirability bias and it seems that asking the future subjects to review the proposal (which indicates the desired outcome) greatly compounds this potential bias. In my opinion, this study would be more robust if the future respondents were blind to these objectives and hypotheses and simply asked for demographic information without providing them any context with which to establish what the desirable outcome is. I comment because I note that a publication in JMIR, or PLoS medicine is the goal and the issue of bias that I raise here would be a major concern if I were asked to review. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on your proposed study! Puhlaa (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Yes excellent points. This could potentially affect the answer for the English group. I already know the professional background of many of the English group though. I do not think people will misrepresent themselves. Many of us (like both yourself and myself) state our professional credentials on our user page. The majority (160) of the group is from non English languages and thus this should not affected them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your reply; I look forward to reading the study one day! Best of luck with your research. Puhlaa (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)